6205 2008-11-04 16:06:00 +0000 add conformance statement for model processors 2008-12-09 18:05:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core+Interchange Format LC PC Windows XP RESOLVED DUPLICATE 6188 P2 normal --- 1 johnarwe cmsmcq public-sml oldest_to_newest 22352 0 johnarwe 2008-11-04 16:06:00 +0000 As discussed at the wg f2f meeting on October 28, 2008: msm: we have some statements in SML spec that use MAY or MUST regarding model processors therefore we should add an entry in the "Conformance" section for model processors. ... RESOLUTION: Add the first two lines proposed by MSM to the SML Conformance Section. [That is, "A conforming SML [or: SML-IF] processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification."] 22353 1 johnarwe 2008-11-04 16:15:58 +0000 I do want to clarify this, since the meeting (and the minutes) reflect terms that language lawyer might assert are new. I think the intent was to add the following: SML: "A conforming SML model processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on model processors elsewhere in this specification." > I inserted the word "model" above, 2x, to match existing 2.2 content. SMLIF: "A conforming SML-IF processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification." > I just removed the SML parts of the resolution, leaving the SMLIF specific bit SMLIF mentions "processors", without defining that term, in 4 places: 2.2 impl-defined 2.2 impl-dep 4.4 schema bindings (non-normative) 5.1 conformance (added via f2f resolution, text above) The wg appears to have at least the following routes out of LLH on this issue: (a) define processors, presumably == producers + consumers (b) replace the existing 3 "processors" with terms already defined (c) assert "good enough" and make no further changes to the f2f resolution Existing 2.2 text from LC2 draft: Implementation-Defined An implementation-defined feature or behavior may vary among processors conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this specification but MUST be specified by the implementor for each particular conforming implementation. Implementation-Dependent An implementation-dependent feature or behavior may vary among processors conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this or any other W3C specification and is not required to be specified by the implementor for any particular implementation. 22374 2 virginia.smith 2008-11-06 18:44:02 +0000 The SML spec was already fixed (with 'model' inserted) by Bug 6188. I don't believe that there was any intent (at the time) to change the SML-IF spec when this item was discussed at the meeting. 22378 3 johnarwe 2008-11-06 19:58:20 +0000 11/6 telecon agreed with Ginny in comment #2 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6188 ***